Genealogy Forum UK

If you have problems searching with Ancestry check this out.

http://lostcousins.com/newsletters/feb11news.htm

Being relatively new to Ancestry, I'd never seen the old search, I'll be trying it out on some of those hard to crack nuts!!!
And maybe when my subscription's due to run out I wont subscribe straight away!

The old search is a lot better.

Jimmy wrote:The old search is a lot better.

I use the old search can't get used to that new one

Northern Lass wrote:

Jimmy wrote:The old search is a lot better.

I use the old search can't get used to that new one

I wouldn't have noticed it if it wasn't pointed out to me!

I quite like - takes a bit of getting used to though

Nothing wrong with the "New" search.

Like any search engine, you have to learn and work arounds its quirks.

Anybody who uses the "Sorted by relevance" option is asking for pain.

Use the "Summarized by catagory" option and you will find their names pop up under catagories you didn't even think of.

A perfectly legitimate parish entry may appear anywhere in the "Sorted by relevance" list and be missed by the impatient.

Why put in the exact parish when searching?

Use the Keyword field and put in London and make it compulsory.

Also, the spelling it prompts when you enter information in an address field is derived from your own tree, not a central bank of names.

So if Ancestry was prompting for "St Saviour, Guernsey, Channel Islands" then somewhere in the authors tree they had that entry.

Try it...create a new tree and see what prompts you get for place names.

ZERO!

Create a new entry and give an address of Smethick, The Moon, OuterSpace.

Next time you start to type Smethwick, the outer space option will appear.

I lost any confidence in the author when the new records on Find My Past were mentioned.

They are only indexes. You pay extra to get the information from a 3rd party. Totally useless.

I mainly use the summerize by category option - although I do occaision switch to relevance.